Should THOR have only one movie or is it financially realistic as a trilogy?

[toddly6666]

Should THOR have only one movie or is it financially realistic as a trilogy?
I personally think a THOR movie will only be financially successful as one movie only a la Gladiator, Beowolf, Pathfinder, Troy. A trilogy would be nice, but Thor seems like the type of superhero in which only one superhero movie is necessary. I certainly wouldn't mind him being in all the AVENGERS movies, but as his own invididual movie, he seems to fit as a one-movie superhero. I only read Thor in the AVENGERS, and never read his own comic, so maybe i'm wrong, but Thor seems sort of cold and ordinary as compared to the depth of Spiderman, X-Men characters, and even the god-like Superman.

 

[3dman27]

i vote trilogy

 

[Katsuro]

Make one movie. If it does good, make another. If that does good, make another, and so on and so forth. I hate trilogies and how everyone seems to want everything to be a trilogy.

 

[Eros]

Thor is a hard movie to do, it will either come off as silly and odd or a butchering of norse mythological characters.

 

[Batman1939]

Trilogy please.

 

[Ben Urich]

Make one movie. If it does good, make another. If that does good, make another, and so on and so forth. I hate trilogies and how everyone seems to want everything to be a trilogy.

Agreed.

 

[chiefchirpa]

My wish is trilogy, but common sense says one good solid movie then the sequels if the first one is a success. So that means there are no cliffhangers, but story may contains a plot that can be continued if the sequels are approved.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Do one good, self-contained film. If it is warranted, then do a sequel. Good superhero comics have a huge variety of stories available.

Ever since LOTR, the idea of every film adaptation being a trilogy has completely overtaken fans.

 

[Matt.S99]

i honestly dont want an individual thor movie,dont get me wrong i like thor but i would rather have an avengers movie

 

[Fried Gold]

Dude, Thor is barely financially realistic as a single movie, let alone a trilogy.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

If it could, I'd say trilogy, building up to Ragnarok.

But I don't reckon it could sustain itself that far.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

Dude, Thor is barely financially realistic as a single movie, let alone a trilogy.

This statement doesn't make sense.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

My vote is for at least 9 movies, with option for another 3 to 6.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

Dude, Thor is barely financially realistic as a single movie, let alone a trilogy.

Idiocy without the benefit of knowledge (of Thor) or any sort of logic.

Thor has, hands down, the best Rogues Gallery of any superhero ever. He also has the strongest supporting cast of any superhero ever.

As I explained in the other thread you can have 9 Thor movies with 4* (interesting) major villains in each (fulfilling different roles), and not be forced to use any twice! So not only will each movie be entertaining, they'll also be original (two features sadly lacking when Superman returned).

*Technically 5, but I don't like counting rank and file 'hammer fodder'.

As long as you don't throw silly money behind the movie (as they did with Superman Returns) and keep the budget in the region of $100 million or thereabouts, these movies will be incredibly profitable.

I estimate with a $100 million dollar budget (and suitable marketing) Thor would make about $135 million domestic (opening weekend $45 million)/$165 million overseas.

 

[Fried Gold]

This statement doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does. To do Thor any sort of justice, you're looking at a Superman Returns-esque budget, something which is very unlikely to happen give that the average Joe is more familiar with Howard the Duck than Thor.

Thor just doesn't have the pulling power of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, heck, even Daredevil, so just the one movie would be a massive financial risk for any studio. Look the films so far of 'lesser' known heroes. Daredevil performed so-so, The Punisher performed so-so, Elektra was a flop... I find it unlikely that anyone is going to look at athat say "Wow! Let's make 9 Thor movies!". The first question asked would be "Who's Thor?".

I'd love to see Thor on the big screen, but I'm not holding my breath for any sort of record breaking success.

 

[Fried Gold]

Idiocy without the benefit of knowledge (of Thor) or any sort of logic.

Error the 1st. You assume that I have no knowledge of Thor, which is quite cleary incorrect.

Thor has, hands down, the best Rogues Gallery of any superhero ever. He also has the strongest supporting cast of any superhero ever.

LOL! Even the average comic reader could only name about 3 of Thor's enemies. Sorry, but Loki just cannot compare to Dock Ock, Venom, the Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Magneto et al. Plus, Thor has a supporting cast? Last time I checked, his supporting cast consisted of other heroes popping up, something which would not happen in the movie world.

As I explained in the other thread you can have 9 Thor movies with 4* (interesting) major villains in each (fulfilling different roles), and not be forced to use any twice! So not only will each movie be entertaining, they'll also be original (two features sadly lacking when Superman returned).

4 villains in each movie? Did you not see Batman&Robin? Another villain in each movie does not necessarily make it original. Look at James Bond; they've been making the same movie for 40 years.

As long as you don't throw silly money behind the movie (as they did with Superman Returns) and keep the budget in the region of $100 million or thereabouts, these movies will be incredibly profitable.

$100 on a relatively unknown commodity would be silly money from a studios perspective.

I estimate with a $100 million dollar budget (and suitable marketing) Thor would make about $135 million domestic (opening weekend $45 million)/$165 million overseas.

I estimate one Thor movie performing so-so, but maybe leading into an appearance in an Avengers movie.

In short, I admire your optimism and enthusiam, but your ideas are a little bit special.

 

[CaptainCanada]

LOL! Even the average comic reader could only name about 3 of Thor's enemies.

There's Loki, and, um...

I'd say many people would be vaguely familiar with the idea of Thor (Avenger, big hammer, speaks archaic English), but the guy's ongoing series got cancelled a couple of years ago for lack of interest, so no one should make any sweeping statements about his popularity, even among comic readers. He's in the same boat as Iron Man and Captain America, characters who are relatively well-known as Avengers but whose personal popularity is a bit soft (although Thor will be a lot easier to market overseas than Cap will be).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

Error the 1st. You assume that I have no knowledge of Thor, which is quite cleary incorrect.

I did not say you had no knowledge of Thor, simply that your comments were bereft of such knowledge...although reading further you do have little or no knowledge of Thor.

LOL! Even the average comic reader could only name about 3 of Thor's enemies.

Irrelevant, the average cinema goer only becomes familiar with movie villains after seeing them on the big screen.

Sorry, but Loki just cannot compare to Dock Ock, Venom, the Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Magneto et al.

I never said Loki was the bestest villain ever, but hes certainly on a par with the likes of Penguin, Green Goblin, Two-Face, Poison Ivy or Ra's Al Ghul for goodness sake.

Plus, Thor has a supporting cast? Last time I checked, his supporting cast consisted of other heroes popping up, something which would not happen in the movie world.

Thats because you are simply ignorant on all matters Thor related. So clearly you do know little to nothing about Thor.

Thor's supporting cast (off the top of my head): Jane Foster, Odin, Balder, Heimdall, Warrior's Three (Fandral, Hogun, Volstagg), Sif. Arguably the following in due course: Hercules, Beta Ray Bill, Gaia, Lieutenant Stone, Eric Masterson (& Family), Red Norvell.

4 villains in each movie? Did you not see Batman&Robin?

Yes. That movie was bad not because it contained three villains, but simply because it was a bad movie and the characters were poorly used.

Another villain in each movie does not necessarily make it original.

Its one extra original element.

Look at James Bond; they've been making the same movie for 40 years.

Bond has had a few gems over the years (Odd Job, Jaws, Blofeld, Dr No etc.) but there is more scope for 'originality' in superhero movies.

$100 on a relatively unknown commodity would be silly money from a studios perspective.

Again talking through your loop. Marvel has already pencilled in a $115 million budget for Thor, same as Iron Man, same as the new Hulk movie same as Captain America, same as the original Fantastic Four movie.

I estimate one Thor movie performing so-so, but maybe leading into an appearance in an Avengers movie.

Your lack of foresight is only rivalled by your lack of insight.

In short, I admire your optimism and enthusiam, but your ideas are a little bit special.

The simple fact of the matter is that Thor would make for a great series of movies. I fail to understand your fear on the matter.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

You tell him Upper, TESTIFY!

 

[Fried Gold]

You tell him Upper, TESTIFY!

GAY HIGH FIVES ALL ROUND!

 

[Fried Gold]

I did not say you had no knowledge of Thor, simply that your comments were bereft of such knowledge...although reading further you do have little or no knowledge of Thor.

I'm only providing the sort of arguments that a non-Thor fan would be presenting ie. being realistic, and not a spanner.

Irrelevant, the average cinema goer only becomes familiar with movie villains after seeing them on the big screen.

Right, but all of Marvel's films so far, there has been a strong superhero element, with a character already within the public concsiousness, except for maybe Daredevil and Elektra, both of which under performed.

I never said Loki was the bestest villain ever, but hes certainly on a par with the likes of Penguin, Green Goblin, Two-Face, Poison Ivy or Ra's Al Ghul for goodness sake.

No he isn't.

Thats because you are simply ignorant on all matters Thor related. So clearly you do know little to nothing about Thor.

Which allows to me to be objective, unlike you, who is so blinded by your love of the character that you are clearly not thinking realistically.

Thor's supporting cast (off the top of my head): Jane Foster, Odin, Balder, Heimdall, Warrior's Three (Fandral, Hogun, Volstagg), Sif. Arguably the following in due course: Hercules, Beta Ray Bill, Gaia, Lieutenant Stone, Eric Masterson (& Family), Red Norvell.

Who?

Yes. That movie was bad not because it contained three villains, but simply because it was a bad movie and the characters were poorly used.

The over crowding of villians and characters is a well recognised aspect of the why the movie sucked so badly.

Its one extra original element.

Yippee ki yay.

Again talking through your loop. Marvel has already pencilled in a $115 million budget for Thor, same as Iron Man, same as the new Hulk movie same as Captain America, same as the original Fantastic Four movie.

Good for them.

The simple fact of the matter is that Thor would make for a great series of movies. I fail to understand your fear on the matter.

Dude, I don't disagree with you. I'm simply stating that jumping up and down, clapping your hands, and saying that they should make 9000 Thor movies in a pretty stupid thing to be doing.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

I'm only providing the sort of arguments that a non-Thor fan would be presenting ie. being realistic, and not a spanner.

So then you fully admit your knowledge of Thor is limited.

Lets take a poll - hands up who was familiar with the characters from the series "Heroes" before that show started? Anyone? Bueller?

The simple fact of the matter is that 90%+ of the movie going audience are not familiar with comic book characters until after they see the movie.

Right, but all of Marvel's films so far, there has been a strong superhero element, with a character already within the public concsiousness, except for maybe Daredevil and Elektra, both of which under performed.

So everyone had heard of Blade before the movies, everyone had heard of Daredvil and Elektra and Hellboy and Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider and Iron Man before they saw them onscreen!? I don't think so.

Let me try and explain something. The only reason most people are familiar now with the likes of Batman, Spiderman, Hulk and Superman is because of television shows and movies.

Before that they didn't know anything about those characters.

So using the excuse that because people don't already know Thor before you bring him to their screens is illogical.

No he isn't.

Okay then start explaining why he isn't.

By your own admission you know little or nothing about Thor, so I am curious to hear how Loki is not on a par with Ra's Al Ghul, or Green Goblin?

Or are you simply going to spout the same silliness about him not already being in the public consciousness?

Which allows to me to be objective, unlike you, who is so blinded by your love of the character that you are clearly not thinking realistically.

On the contrary, if I didn't know Thor could work as a movie franchise I would say so. The simple fact of the matter is that hes got all the right ingredients:

1. He taps the fantasy genre, currently in vogue.
2. Epic battles are a staple of the series.
3. Hes got lots of visually impressive villains that will look great on the big screen.
4. Hes a warrior born - so theres going to be lots of action.
5. Theres lots of scope for issues to be raised in the subtext (religious freedom and so forth).
6. His powers are visually impressive (he flies by hurling the hammer and holding on, he descends by using it like a helicopter, he is master of the storm, can use the hammer like a shield, can shift to other dimensions and times).
7. He has so many villains there is always going to be something new to see each movie (and dare I say great for the toy division).
8. Lots of scope for character growth. One of the key elements of Thor is the idea of growing up and taking responsibility for your actions.
9. We get to see exotic far away places: Asgard, Niflheim, Muspell, Helheim, the worlds of the Rigellians and Ego of the Black Galaxy.
10. There are lots of strong female characters (both heroic and villainous).

Whereas you dismiss the idea of a Thor movie purely because hes not as well known as Batman. If people like you were in charge nothing would ever get made.

Who?

Great characters deserving to be let loose into the public consciousness.

The over crowding of villians and characters is a well recognised aspect of the why the movie sucked so badly.

Only by total idiots who know little or nothing about the subject.

Batman and Robin was terrible because it was as camp as the 60's television series. It was absolutely nothing to do with having three villains at all.

Yippee ki yay.

As opposed to the originality of another Lex-a-thon.

Speaking of Lex, Loki is a far better villain than the version of Lex Luthor onscreen in Superman Returns.

Good for them.

Your concession is accepted.

Dude, I don't disagree with you. I'm simply stating that jumping up and down, clapping your hands, and saying that they should make 9000 Thor movies in a pretty stupid thing to be doing.

I don't see how stating they could make 9 nine movies (and then backing it up with objective arguments) amounts to 'jumping up and down and clapping my hands'?

The simple fact of the matter is that you could make more Thor movies than Superman or Batman movies. Now I am not saying a Thor movie will gross as much as Batman or Superman movie, simply that Thor can accomodate at least nine movies (each with multiple villains) without recycling the same villains and plots. It can be a strong franchise if given the chance.

 

[GL1]

I'll bite.

Lets take a poll - hands up who was familiar with the characters from the series "Heroes" before that show started? Anyone? Bueller?

The simple fact of the matter is that 90%+ of the movie going audience are not familiar with comic book characters until after they see the movie.

So everyone had heard of Blade before the movies, everyone had heard of Daredvil and Elektra and Hellboy and Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider and Iron Man before they saw them onscreen!? I don't think so.

Let me try and explain something. The only reason most people are familiar now with the likes of Batman, Spiderman, Hulk and Superman is because of television shows and movies.
Before that they didn't know anything about those characters.

So using the excuse that because people don't already know Thor before you bring him to their screens is illogical.

Something Thor has never had, which cannot be said for Fantastic Four and Iron Man. There is room for 'new' movies (even if they are based on obscure things, like Thor comics), and those occasionally do well, like Blade and Hellboy, but to say that this is a rule and not an exception is odd. Also, the lack of popularity of Thor comics among comics fans is a red flag.

Okay then start explaining why he isn't.

By your own admission you know little or nothing about Thor, so I am curious to hear how Loki is not on a par with Ra's Al Ghul, or Green Goblin?

Or are you simply going to spout the same silliness about him not already being in the public consciousness?

Loki is a trickster god and physically inferior to Thor physically. He offers similar villain fodder as Lex Luthor, Riddler or other brains-over-brawn villains. While this can be entertaining, it is limited in it's potential.

On the contrary, if I didn't know Thor could work as a movie franchise I would say so. The simple fact of the matter is that hes got all the right ingredients:

1. He taps the fantasy genre, currently in vogue.
2. Epic battles are a staple of the series.
3. Hes got lots of visually impressive villains that will look great on the big screen.
4. Hes a warrior born - so theres going to be lots of action.
5. Theres lots of scope for issues to be raised in the subtext (religious freedom and so forth).
6. His powers are visually impressive (he flies by hurling the hammer and holding on, he descends by using it like a helicopter, he is master of the storm, can use the hammer like a shield, can shift to other dimensions and times).
7. He has so many villains there is always going to be something new to see each movie (and dare I say great for the toy division).
8. Lots of scope for character growth. One of the key elements of Thor is the idea of growing up and taking responsibility for your actions.
9. We get to see exotic far away places: Asgard, Niflheim, Muspell, Helheim, the worlds of the Rigellians and Ego of the Black Galaxy.
10. There are lots of strong female characters (both heroic and villainous).

Whereas you dismiss the idea of a Thor movie purely because hes not as well known as Batman. If people like you were in charge nothing would ever get made.

To say that Thor does not have any potential is silly. To say that Thor is worthy of 9 movies, when the same can scarcely be said for Spider-Man, Batman and Superman is possibly MORE silly.

All superheroes have plenty room for action and epic battles, hardly a strength of the Thor character. Nor is Thor even remotely unique or specially empowered to deal with social subtext or coming of age stories. And there are few superheroes without strong females around on both sides. You are trumping up Thor's strengths with hollowness. The vast majority of Superheroes also have TONS of villains (any of which can be visually impressive), another thing that is typical of Thor, not unique.

It IS true that Thor's fantasy elements and otherworldly exploration are strengths for the franchise. The rest of that is hollow as an innertube.

You also confuse his recognizable Norse origins as a supporting cast instead of a strength.

Great characters deserving to be let loose into the public consciousness.

Every character is a great character under the right writer. Thor's supporting cast is underwhelming due to their lack of recognizability and integral part in his origin and development.

When I think of Hulk I think of Betty, Thunderbolt, even Rick Jones.
WhenI think of Iron Man, I think of Jarvis and Jim Rhodes.
When I think of Thor... Odin? That's it. And while Thor fans may know his supporting cast, it's lack of recognizability to the rest of the comic reading world suggests a lack of importance, imho.

Only by total idiots who know little or nothing about the subject.

Batman and Robin was terrible because it was as camp as the 60's television series. It was absolutely nothing to do with having three villains at all.

Close, but not quite. It being the 60's series is what led them to include a bunch of villains (and heroes) without trying to develop any single villain into anything important or menacing.

As opposed to the originality of another Lex-a-thon.

Speaking of Lex, Loki is a far better villain than the version of Lex Luthor onscreen in Superman Returns.

My mother is a far better villain than the version of Lex Luthor onscreen in SR. So?

I don't see how stating they could make 9 nine movies (and then backing it up with objective arguments) amounts to 'jumping up and down and clapping my hands'?

The simple fact of the matter is that you could make more Thor movies than Superman or Batman movies. Now I am not saying a Thor movie will gross as much as Batman or Superman movie, simply that Thor can accomodate at least nine movies (each with multiple villains) without recycling the same villains and plots. It can be a strong franchise if given the chance.

Few objective arguements were made. Perhaps three at most. In a list of 10, that's awful close to overexcited! (And Thor... he has... LOTS of villains! [lol])

If you are actually going to sit here and say that Thor has more villains and story types to draw on than Batman or Superman, then honestly you're pretty ignorant on those two heroes. Each of them has Dozens and dozens of villains and has explored every genre, including fantasy on their own, unassisted. I'm not talking about gross, I'm talking about number of movies and Thor simply can't hold a candle to Superman and Batman... even on his best day.

Thor can be a strong franchise if given the chance, I'll agree with that. I'd prefer a single awesome movie rather than three good ones... or nine good ones... or 15 good ones... whatever. I like Thor better with the Avengers, basically.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey GL1!

apologies for the delay in getting this post finished.

I'll bite.

Be careful you don't bite off more than you can chew.

Something Thor has never had, which cannot be said for Fantastic Four and Iron Man.

I'm sorry mate I don't understand the context of this sentence.

There is room for 'new' movies (even if they are based on obscure things, like Thor comics), and those occasionally do well, like Blade and Hellboy, but to say that this is a rule and not an exception is odd. Also, the lack of popularity of Thor comics among comics fans is a red flag.

It is a rule that the majority of people will not have heard about a comic character before they see that character in the movies.

The exceptions are characters who have already featured in movies - see how that works!

Loki is a trickster god and physically inferior to Thor physically. He offers similar villain fodder as Lex Luthor, Riddler or other brains-over-brawn villains. While this can be entertaining, it is limited in it's potential.

Loki is a schemer at heart, I agree with you in that respect. However, he is much more versatile.

He has fought Thor hand to hand.
He has fought Thor with his magic (great visual potential).
He also works in the background messing things up fo Thor.
He is also cannot be killed, so he makes a good nemesis.
In certain cases he probably has something akin to diplomatic immunity, in that he is an Asgardian prince.

To say that Thor does not have any potential is silly. To say that Thor is worthy of 9 movies, when the same can scarcely be said for Spider-Man, Batman and Superman is possibly MORE silly.

I have to disagree - its a stone cold fact, Thor is worthy of 9 movies based upon his Rogue's Gallery. More than Batman, more than Superman, more than Spiderman.

All superheroes have plenty room for action and epic battles,

Since when? The only 'epic' battle spidey ever fought was against the Sinister Six (and that pales in comparison to Lord of the Rings style battles). In terms of an 'epic battle' Batman is nowhere to be seen. Superman has some potential, but to be honest its almost never been realised in the comics (feel free to come back at me on this point with examples).

hardly a strength of the Thor character.

Now I know you are off your rocker. So many great Thor arcs end in some awesome epic battle! No other comic character has anywhere near the same potential for wondrous battles and creating such a visceral spectacle.

Nor is Thor even remotely unique or specially empowered to deal with social subtext or coming of age stories.

I think he is unique in his ability to tackle ideas such as religious freedom.

But by all means tell us who is better qualified in that respect?

And there are few superheroes without strong females around on both sides.

Some more so than others. Who are the strong women in the Batman movies? I would concede Lois Lane (though not the Bosworth incarnation) is a strong character.

The point I was making is that the female demographic is covered, the action adventure demographic is covered, the younger generation demographic is covered.

You are trumping up Thor's strengths with hollowness. The vast majority of Superheroes also have TONS of villains (any of which can be visually impressive), another thing that is typical of Thor, not unique.

I disagree. I don't think there are truly that many villains who are visually interesting/impressive. Spidey has a half a dozen or so (Doc Ock, Sandman, Venom, Hydroman etc.), Batman has a handful (Scarecrow, Mr Freeze), Superman maybe has one or two (60 storey tall Metallo for instance). But Thor has lots.

It IS true that Thor's fantasy elements and otherworldly exploration are strengths for the franchise. The rest of that is hollow as an innertube.

Nonsense.

No other character has as many visually impressive villains.
No other character has the same scope for epic battles.

You also confuse his recognizable Norse origins as a supporting cast instead of a strength.

How is it not both?

Every character is a great character under the right writer. Thor's supporting cast is underwhelming due to their lack of recognizability and integral part in his origin and development.

I don't think they are as much of a crutch as say for instance Batman, Superman or Spidermans supporting cast.

When I think of Hulk I think of Betty, Thunderbolt, even Rick Jones. WhenI think of Iron Man, I think of Jarvis and Jim Rhodes.
When I think of Thor... Odin? That's it. And while Thor fans may know his supporting cast, it's lack of recognizability to the rest of the comic reading world suggests a lack of importance, imho.

Again you are confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of merit.

One the supporting cast is established onscreen people will see the merits of them.

Close, but not quite. It being the 60's series is what led them to include a bunch of villains (and heroes) without trying to develop any single villain into anything important or menacing.

So, by your logic, if you have multiple villains it must be camp, because Batman & Robin - was camp.

My mother is a far better villain than the version of Lex Luthor onscreen in SR. So?

Well I might agree with you on that one. t:

Few objective arguements were made. Perhaps three at most. In a list of 10, that's awful close to overexcited! (And Thor... he has... LOTS of villains! [lol])

I thought you said you were not that familiar witth him!

If you are actually going to sit here and say that Thor has more villains and story types to draw on than Batman or Superman, then honestly you're pretty ignorant on those two heroes.

Not more - simply better ones.

Obviously any series runing from the 30s with a mult-book strokefest in operation will have lots of villains. Thats not the point. How many of those villains are worthy of a return visit. Not that many in Supermans case.

I'll finish the rest of your comments later.

 

[RagingTempest]

I think Thor could be made into a great triolgy!! It's not impossible to make a hardly unknown superhero popular, as long as it has a strong storyline and characters!! With the fantasy and allusions of LOTR trilogy, I think a Thor movie would be very appealing to audiences. I know I would love to see Loki, Enchantress, the Executioner on the big screen, maybe even Ymir!!t: